Seamless

Illinois' Supreme Court a few years ago held that IL public highways generally are not intended/designed/constructed/maintained for bicycle riding, and therefore public entities are not liable for injuries caused by defective roads where a bike rider is concerned, on the theory that there is no general expectation that a bicycle rider is an intended user of the road.

The rationale is ludicrous, but fiscally understandable considering most of IL state roads are in rural areas and longstanding statutes affording public entities immunity from all sorts of hazards.

OTOH, IL courts have also held that an auto driver is not a reasonably anticipated user of a city street when s/he gets out of the car and does not walk the most direct route from the side of the street the auto is parked on to the nearest same-side adjacent public walkway. The courts hold pedestrians to the same standard when a crosswalk (not required to be marked) is available (even if a block away: you can't just cross to the other side of the street, you've got to walk on the wrong side to the corner or marked crosswalk before crossing).

The city of Chicago has moderated the extreme position they could hold under state law by creating and maintaining signed bike lanes and routes (so obviously those routes are intended to be used by bike riders), to the point that in some areas use of bike lanes and routes are mandatory. Of course the problem then becomes how do you convince the administration, and the city council, to pay for damages (the city even insists its corporate counsel and the city council have to approve court judgments and pay out of budgeted accounts).